(no subject)

[seekingferret]

A couple years ago, a friend agreed to try to write a paradelle with me. The paradelle is an extremely complicated verse structure invented by Billy Collins- it's a parody of a villanelle.

Collin's description of the paradelle form: It is a poem of four six-line stanzas in which the first and second lines, as well as the third and fourth lines of the first three stanzas, must be identical. The fifth and sixth lines, which traditionally resolve these stanzas, must use all the words from the preceding lines and only those words. Similarly, the final stanza must use every word from all the preceding stanzas and only these words.

Needless to say, the last stanza is destined to be virtually incoherent and terrible. I offered this friend that I would write the first three stanzas if she would write the final stanza. Two years later, she still hasn't done so, so I thought I'd invite other people to finish my paradelle. It's about physics, because I'm a nerd who writes bad physics poetry.

An Incomplete Astrophysics Paradelle

Of astrophysicists peering deep into the cosmos.
Of astrophysicists peering deep into the cosmos.
Through spectacles, mirrors, and confocal lenses.
Through spectacles, mirrors, and confocal lenses.
Confocal cosmos, peering through mirrors,
And deep into the lenses of astrophysicist's spectacles

To find the connective matter for space-time
To find the connective matter for space-time
Is to be the dreamers whose vision is truth.
Is to be the dreamers whose vision is truth.
The vision whose connective truth is space
Matter for the dreamers-to-be to find time

Because in space nobody can hear you weeping
Because in space no one can hear you weeping
It seems like no one is there at all
It seems like no one is there at all
Hear all at one. No, it seems there is you because
Nobody in weeping can like space

If you're interested, we can negotiate on some of this if you need help maneuvering certain words. There are effects I really like- "confocal cosmos' is great, and I like transforming "to be the dreamers" into "the dreamers-to-be". But there are things that can bear improvement. I feel like I'm close but not quite there on the spectacle/spectacles pun. And weeping is semantically the right word, but it doesn't have quite the word-feel for what I want. But I would like to say that I have co-written a paradelle, so please, help me finish!

Comments

[melannen]

Okay, I couldn't resist, but this is very much a first try, and I'm not actually sure I like it as a capstone for what you were trying to say - but hey, at least it's vaguely coherent!

Also, I think I broke the rules as used in other paradelles, because I didn't worry about how many times I repeated the words as long as I used them all and no other. Frequency rules aren't specified, but most of the examples I saw did stick to them? I may try to tweak it to get the frequencies right but keep the meanings.

Whose weeping is it, can you hear? No, because
The cosmos is confocal, connective, there through the dreamers,
Into you: All there is to find, for astrophysicists,
In space, is the truth of matter and time, the spectacles.
For you, peering at the deep, it seems like the lenses
Be mirrors of one vision: you, nobody, weeping.

[seekingferret]

Yeah, I think it's generally understood that frequency is supposed to be maintained.

But I like this a lot, and find myself surprised at how many of the ideas I was fumbled toward in the opening stanzas gets restated effectively in your stanza.

[melannen]

Well, here's the best I can do, maintaining frequency (assuming I counted right) and most of the original meaning. Less coherent (and less poetic, at least to my ear) but otherwise not too bad?

Can space hear? No. Because the cosmos
Is confocal, connective, through dreamers
Into you. There in space for astrophysicists to find
Is the truth to matter and time, all spectacles.
Peering at the deep, it seems like lenses
Be mirrors of one vision-- nobody, who's weeping.


I am debating whether to move the last to lines to the beginning or mess with the order of the other lines, but I probably ought to leave it be unless I want to end up with a total rewrite. (form poetry is like that.)

[seekingferret]

I'm interested in your change from the comma to a period after No. I think I like it better with the period.

The more I reread both your and my choices, the more I feel like the whole thing hinges on the dual meaning of the word 'spectacles', and I like that your verse in the second version manages to sort of activate both meanings.

I really like that you moved connective into the cosmos/confocal juncture, because it seizes on the alliteration but also... supports the beam path? This poem is almost disturbingly literal sometimes. Kind of terrible, also, but that's not your fault, and maybe not even mine.

[melannen]

That was actually a really good set of words to work with, both in terms of meaning and sound. The confocal/connective/cosmos alliteration was a great way to tie ti together.

It was really hard to make the "spectacles" double meaning show, I think because of the plural - the plural *really* wants to mean glasses.

"Can space hear?" is really a very different question than "Whose weeping is it, can you hear?" and it doesn't flow into the "because" *nearly* as well, which is why I put the stronger stop in.